Longitudinal structural MRI-based deep learning and radiomics features for predicting Alzheimer’s disease progression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the principal cause of dementia and requires the early diagnosis of people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) who are at high risk of progressing. Early diagnosis is imperative for optimizing clinical management and selecting proper therapeutic interventions. Structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) markers have been widely investigated for predicting the conversion of MCI to AD, and recent advances in deep learning (DL) methods offer enhanced capabilities for identifying subtle neurodegenerative changes over time. METHODS: We selected 228 MCI participants from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) who had at least three T1-weighted MRI scans within 18 months of baseline. MRI volumes underwent bias correction, segmentation, and radiomics feature extraction. A 3D residual network (ResNet3D) was trained using a pairwise ranking loss to capture single-timepoint risk scores. Longitudinal analyses were performed by extracting deep convolutional neural network (CNN) embeddings and gray matter radiomics for each scan, which were put into a time-aware long short-term memory (LSTM) model with an attention mechanism. RESULTS: A single-timepoint ResNet3D model achieved modest performance (c-index ~ 0.70). Incorporating longitudinal MRI files or downstream survival models led to a pronounced prognostic improvement (c-index:0.80-0.90), but was not further improved by longitudinal radiomics data. Time-specific classification within two- and three-year and five-year windows after the last MRI acquisition showed high accuracy (AUC > 0.85). Several radiomics, including gray matter surface to volume and elongation, emerged as the most predictive features. Each SD change in the gray matter surface to volume change within the last visit was associated with an increased risk of developing AD (HR: 1.50; 95% CI: 1.25-1.79). CONCLUSIONS: These findings emphasize the value of structural MRI within the advanced DL architectures for predicting MCI-to-AD conversion. The approach may enable earlier risk stratification and targeted interventions for individuals most likely to progress. limitations in sample size and computational resources warrant larger, more diverse studies to confirm these observations and explore additional improvements.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".